1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to Materials Requirement Planning (MRP) systems and more particularly to an improved MRP system that includes an information warehouse that centralizes the materials order planning process for all business divisions of a corporation.
2. Description of the Related Art
With the increasing complexity and delivery expectations of today's supply chain, it is crucial that the Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) process evolve to be effective and accurate in the e-business environment. Component availability can have major impacts on delivery measurements as well as revenue impacts.
FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional parts ordering and supply system. The term “parts” is used herein as a shorthand term for all items that are purchased by a business entity to operate its business and manufacture items and includes, for example, materials, elements, assemblies, tools, supplies, labor, and energy.
In FIG. 1, a business entity 140 is shown to include multiple business units 130-132. In this example, three business units 130-132 are shown; however, as would be known by one ordinarily skilled in the art, the business entity 140 can include any number of business units. The business units 130-132 are generally distinguished from one another by physical location, function, product makeup, etc. Business unit L and business unit M include individual automated systems for calculating the parts that will be required to meet product demand. These units are identified as materials requirement planning (MRP) systems 135, 136. Business unit N does not include an MRP unit. To the contrary, business unit N calculates its demand using manual or other semi-automated systems.
The MRP systems 135, 136 generally operate by exploding the finished products manufactured by the business entity 140 into component parts. These exploded component parts are then multiplied by the number of finished products needed to determine the demand for the component parts that must be ordered from parts suppliers 110-112. The MRP systems 135, 136 not only automatically calculate the demand for component parts that are necessary, but such systems can also place the orders directly with the various parts suppliers 110-112.
As shown in FIG. 1, each business unit (and more particularly, each MRP unit 135, 136) operates independently when ordering parts. Therefore, each business unit independently places orders with the different parts suppliers 110-112 and the assembly suppliers 120, 121. Therefore, for example, business unit N (132) individually places orders with parts supplier C (112) and assembly supplier G (121).
The assembly suppliers manufacture pre-assembled items that are utilized by the business units 130-132. Some of these assembly suppliers may purchase parts from the same part suppliers that the business units use and may also purchase parts that other assembly suppliers use. For example, business unit M (131) purchases parts from parts supplier B (111). In addition, both assembly supplier F (120) and assembly supplier G (121) also purchase parts from parts supplier B (111). In some instances, all three of the ordering entities (120, 121, 130) may be purchasing the same part from supplier B (111); however, because the various entity ordering systems are not coordinated, each entity orders individually. Part suppliers generally provide volume discounts, whereby a purchasing entity is provided with a lower price for purchasing a larger volume. Therefore, by coordinating the purchasing needs of the different business units 130-132 and the different assembly suppliers 120-121, the business entity 140 may be able to obtain additional price reductions for parts purchases.
However, a number of obstacles stand in the way of coordinating such purchasing information. For example, the different MRP systems 135, 136 are usually developed independently and are, therefore, not readily compatible with one another. In addition, many business units (such as business unit N) may not utilize automated demand/ordering systems. Further, different MRP systems may be run at variable times based on business conditions and individual business situations. When the latest data is available, it is difficult to capture and requires extensive manual intervention to even try to keep any individual or aggregated information up to date in a conventional system.
Alternatively, the business entity 140 may attempt to establish a single MRP system for all business units within the business entity 140, or require that all business units utilize the same, consistent MRP application. This has numerous drawbacks, including the extensive development costs to integrate. Further, running multiple MRP systems can introduce errors and tie up resources. Also, requirements of synchronous running become exponentially complex as more MRP systems are added.